I've been getting caught up on my Wired magazine reading this weekend. The November issue had a cover story that I put off reading for when I had the time, because I knew it would be of interest to me. The cover reads: "The New Atheism. No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science. Inside the crusade against religion." The main article is annoyingly titled
"The Church of the Non-Believing", and centers around the latest three books defending atheism, and/or attacking belief in the supernatural (with traditional religious belief being a large part of that). These are evolutionary biologist Richard
Dawkins' best-seller
The God Delusion,
neuroscientist Sam Harris'
Letter to a Christian Nation, and philosopher Daniel
Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
The Wired article is a good read, particularly if you don't have the time or interest to read any of these three new books. It summarizes the angle that each of these three folks are taking in attacking supernatural beliefs, mysticism, faith - in short, the essence of religions the world around. And it presents how this represents "new" atheism: not that the arguments used by these writers are new
per se, but that their attitude to their task is new, as they see a new urgency to ridding the world of belief in the supernatural. For what its worth, in what follows I'll just be picking and choosing bits and pieces from the Wired article that I feel like commenting on.
There is a nice quote from
Dawkins on the onus of proof issue (that it isn't up to science to disprove God, or any other arbitrary assertion or existential claim made without evidence.) He even mentions the Flying Spaghetti Monster (see the
original website and the
Wikipedia entry on this for more info), a variant on Russell's teapot example (see
Wikipedia on this too).
Dawkins pleas for non-believers to come out of the closet as it were, noting that there are more non-believers in the US alone than there are Jewish people on the entire planet.
Dawkins also notes here that the battle between evolution and creationism is just that -- a minor battle, the tip of the iceberg. The real war is between naturalism and
supernaturalism, noting that "sensible" religious people are actually more fundamentally akin to the "extreme" religious believers than they are to pro-reason atheists like
Dawkins -- because they are fundamentally
supernaturalists, not naturalists. This is of course one dimension on which beliefs can be considered, and on this point at least, he is correct.
Before shifting from discussing
Dawkins to Harris, the author of this article, Gary Wolf, makes an interesting point about why some people dismiss atheism or at least don't admit their own non-belief in religion. Some people consider it rude. That is "Atheism is like telling somebody, 'The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.' ... This is the statement the New Atheists believe must be made - loudly, clearly and before it's too late."
The consideration of Sam Harris is interesting, and includes a quote from his book:
"Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you," he writes, addressing his imaginary
opponent, "dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of
the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible
reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by
your attachment to an imaginary God."
I also enjoyed this exchange between Wolf and Harris. Harris certainly doesn't pull punches:
"Look at slavery," he says. We are at a beautiful restaurant in Santa Monica, near the public lots from which Americans – nearly 80 percent of whom believe the Bible is the true word of God, if polls are correct – walk happily down to the beach in various states of undress. "People used to think," Harris says, "that slavery was morally acceptable. The most intelligent, sophisticated people used to accept that you could kidnap whole families, force them to work for you, and sell their children. That looks ridiculous to us today. We're going to look back and be amazed that we approached this asymptote of destructive capacity while allowing ourselves to be balkanized by fantasy. What seems quixotic is quixotic – on this side of a radical change. From the other side, you can't believe it didn't happen earlier. At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God."
Suddenly I notice in myself a protective feeling toward Harris. Here is a man who believes that a great global change, perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of humanity, will occur out of sheer intellectual embarrassment.
We discuss what it might look like, this world without God. "There would be a religion of reason," Harris says. "We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously – a lot more seriously than most religious people take it. But it would be a rational decision, and it would not be just because it's in the Bible. We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bullshit."
I do call it prayer. Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.
Just as I found the use of the word "Church" in the article's title to be annoying, I find the use of the word "prayer" here to be annoying. Worse than annoying really, they are conceptually confused, as they demonstrate a lack of understanding of essentials in defining one's terms. And for what reason? Just to be cute or to draw attention in the case of the title. Can't Mr. Wolf show off his writing chops without causing readers to further muddy important concepts under discussion?
But that aside, what Harris is saying here is striking. His prediction, or perhaps his hope, is that eventually there will be some sort of point of inflection in the culture (of the world), where supernatural beliefs, faith, mysticism -- the core of what is essential to religion -- will be seen to be intellectually
embarrassing. Many people look on astrology that way today for example. Or consider the tribal belief systems of Africa or other third-world countries. These are often polytheistic or animist. I've always assumed that most Christians, and other believers of the major religions, see these obscure (to them) systems of supernatural belief as "intellectually
embarrassing". But why? They are no more or less supernaturally-based than their own religious beliefs are. And they are no more or less in need of faith for at least some of the basket of beliefs. Harris is just noting that there could (will?) come a time when the same will be said of all religions -- Christianity and so on will be seen the way astrology, palm-reading, or tribal beliefs are seen today.
Or consider another case. I've always thought about how I (and I assume most viewers) react to seeing the religions of aliens from other planets portrayed in sci-
fi movies and TV shows. For instance, consider the mystic beliefs of the
Klingons in the Star Trek series. I always reacted to that as follows "Those silly
Klingons. They have no evidence for their beliefs in the supernatural, life after death, and so on." But then why not apply this attitude to your own religious beliefs? I think most believers do so not only to fictional religions from sci-
fi shows, but also to a great many obscure real religions here on Earth -- just not to their own (and perhaps a few other mainstream ones that they "respect").
This is all similar to the old atheist line that notes the difference between the Atheist and the monotheists, e.g., Christians/Jews/Muslims. It goes like this: "You reject eastern religions or the ancient Greek gods in part because they
believe in multiple gods. Well, I believe in one less god than you."
I'm always careful when employing that line, because while humorous, I think it is philosophically misleading. It could be taken to imply that there is commonality on the essential point between the atheist and the monotheist, just as their is between the monotheist and the polytheist. But while the latter is true, the former is not: as
Dawkins made the point, the key distinction is between naturalism and
supernaturalism, not in this case, between how many supernatural beings your belief system allows for.
Getting back now to this lengthy article in Wired, I must say the part I was least pleased with was the section covering philosopher Daniel
Dennett. I'm not sure if this is because I disagree with some of
Dennett's views, or whether he wasn't reported well in this article -- I'd have to read
Dennett's latest book to find out. For example: "Ethical problems must be solved by reason, not arbitrary rules. And yet, on the other hand,
Dennett knows that reason alone will fail." That is a view I disagree with, but is that really
Dennett's view, or a misrepresentation by Wolf? Or consider also
Dennett's view of ethical "default settings", whatever those are explained to be exactly. This sounds like a variant on moral
intuitionism, a broad umbrella very popular in philosophy departments in recent years, but a methodology and viewpoint I think is very flawed.
Or consider this passage from the article:
"Yes, there could be a rational religion," Dennett says. "We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things." He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.
I ask Dennett if there might not be a contradiction in his scheme. On the one hand, he aggressively confronts the faithful, attacking their sacred beliefs. On the other hand, he proposes that our inherited defaults be put outside the limits of dispute. But this would make our defaults into a religion, unimpeachable and implacable gods. And besides, are we not atheists? Sacred prohibitions are anathema to us.
Dennett replies that exceptions can be made. "Philosophers are the ones who refuse to accept the sacred values," he says. For instance, Socrates.
I find this answer supremely odd. The image of an atheist religion whose sacred objects, called defaults, are taboo for all except philosophers – this is the material of the cruelest parody. But that's not what Dennett means. In his scenario, the philosophers are not revered authorities but mental risk-takers and scouts. Their adventures invite ridicule, or worse. "Philosophers should expect to be hooted at and reviled," Dennett says. "Socrates drank the hemlock. He knew what he was doing."
While I admit being confused as to what
Dennett might be meaning with all this, based on what I've read in this article, I don't like the sound of it. It seems as though he is yet another moral intuitionist, or someone who believes we have ethical views (e.g., altruism in various forms and variants) placed in us through evolution, and that this is somehow a defense of them as the right ethical principles to live one's life by. And beyond that,
Dennett seems to be saying that the average person need not question these ethical principles -- just let the philosophers handle that, since that is what they are good at. He says it could be "pragmatic" for the average person to not think about the details of this, and to just guard our common ethical "defaults" and presumably enforce them in society when necessary. That I disagree with all of this (if understanding his views correctly from the brief blurb in this article) I'll just say now for the record. I'm sure it will come up on this blog again in the future, and I'll explain further at that time.
Leaving my confusion over
Dennett's views, the other failing of this article is the final paragraph:
The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.
First "church", then "prayer", and now... "faith" used in a confused and essence-destroying way. Faith is the continued belief in a proposition when no evidence in its favor is available. Catholics, for example have "faith" in the virgin birth and miracles, even though these defy scientific evidence, as well as "The Trinity", even though this violates the logical law of identity. They admit this, and that is why these are doctrines of faith (as opposed to many other of their views, that following Aquinas, can be defended -- so they say -- by reason, and so resorting to faith isn't necessary.) But who has "faith" -- belief without evidence -- in the universal skepticism of "there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong"? Does the author really have faith
in that? Or is he just weaseling out of taking an atheist stand against arbitrary claims? One need not claim omniscience -- one just needs to brand the arbitrary
as arbitrary.
This paragraph also gives us a false alternative. Note that the so-called "New Atheists" do not (to my knowledge) equate Al-
Qaeda and the Taliban as equal to progressive/liberal Christians. The former are intellectual allies and enablers of the former -- on the most fundamental level, because they are all
supernaturalists. But recognizing that, and fighting against
supernaturalism wherever one sees it, does not render the "New Atheist" incapable of drawing important distinctions, such as the difference between an enabler and the actual do-er. The difference between the person who believes in the supernatural and who uses that as his reasons for murdering people, versus the person who believes in the supernatural, but who does not -- indeed, who in some cases fights at all levels except the most fundamental one against those who commit such acts of violence. Obviously the "New Atheists" are able to make such distinctions between thought and action, while still maintaining the fundamental issue of
supernaturalism vs. naturalism is something that really needs to be focused on.
Having made those complaints, this lengthy Wired article is a worthwhile read -- for atheists, agnostics, and religious believers alike. And don't miss the sidebar items too, on the right in the box labelled "Faces of the New Atheism", which includes a brief item about comedians Penn and Teller, who are not only atheist but generally pro-liberty as well -- and are a rare breed... celebrities I'd like to meet someday!
Lastly, I'll note that a while back I started reading one of the three books mentioned here,
The God Delusion by Richard
Dawkins. I've read the preface and the first two chapters, and skimmed other parts so far. I plan to post comments on a chapter-by-chapter basis to this blog, so if you care about issues of atheism and religion, you might be interested in those. They'll be slow in coming though, as I read so many other things each week, finding time to read actual books is a luxury.
Labels: philosophy, religion
